Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the saliency methods are evaluated for their ability to generate saliency maps, and not for their functionality in a complete vision pipeline, for instance, image classification or salient object subitizing. In this work, we introduce saliency subitizing as the weak supervision. This task is inspired by the ability of people to quickly and accurately identify the number of items within the subitizing range (e.g., 1 to 4 different types of things). This means that the subitizing information will tell us the number of featured objects in a given image. To this end, we propose a saliency subitizing process (SSP) as a first approximation to learn saliency detection, without the need for any unsupervised methods or some random seeds. We conduct extensive experiments on two benchmark datasets (Toronto and SID4VAM). The experimental results show that our method outperforms other weakly supervised methods and even performs comparable to some fully supervised methods as a first approximation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it